Artery Research

Volume 23, Issue C, September 2018, Pages 56 - 62

Modeling radial artery pressure waveforms using curve fitting: Comparison of four types of fitting functions

Authors
Xinge Jianga, b, Shoushui Weia, *, Jingbo Jib, Feifei Liuc, Peng Lia, Chengyu Liuc, **
aSchool of Control Science and Engineering, Shandong University, Jinan, 250061, China
bShandong College of Electronic Technology, Jinan, 250200, China
cThe State Key Laboratory of Bioelectronics, Jiangsu Key Lab of Remote Measurement and Control, School of Instrument Science and Engineering, Southeast University, Nanjing, 210096, China
*Corresponding author. E-mail address: sswei@sdu.edu.cn (S. Wei)
**Corresponding author. E-mail address: chengyu@seu.edu.cn (C. Liu).
Corresponding Author
Shoushui Wei
Received 15 July 2018, Revised 1 August 2018, Accepted 20 August 2018, Available Online 3 September 2018.
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.artres.2018.08.003How to use a DOI?
Keywords
Curve fitting, Raleigh function, Double-exponential function, Gaussian function, Logarithmic normal function, Radial artery pressure waveform (RAPW), Mean absolute error
Abstract

Background: Curve fitting has been intensively used to model artery pressure waveform (APW). The modelling accuracy can greatly influence the calculation of APWs parameters that serve as quantitative measures for assessing the morphological characteristics of APWs. However, it is unclear which fitting function is more suitable for APW. In this paper, we compared the fitting accuracies of four types of fitting functions, including Raleigh function, double-exponential function, Gaussian function, and logarithmic normal function, in modeling radial artery pressure waveform (RAPW).

Methods: RAPWs were recorded from 24 healthy subjects in resting supine position. To perform curve fitting, 10 consecutive stable RAPWs for each subject were randomly selected and each waveform was fitted using three instances of the same fitting function.

Results: The mean absolute percentage errors (MAPE) of the fitting results were 5.89% ± 0.46% (standard deviation), 3.31% ± 0.22%, 2.25% ± 0.31%, and 1.49% ± 0.28% for Raleigh function, double-exponential function, Gaussian function, and logarithmic normal function, respectively. Their corresponding mean maximum residual errors were 23.71%, 17.83%, 6.11%, and 5.49%.

Conclusions: The performance of using Gaussian function and logarithmic normal function to model RAPW is comparable, and is better than that of using Raleigh function and double-exponential function.

Copyright
© 2018 Association for Research into Arterial Structure and Physiology. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Open Access
This is an open access article distributed under the CC BY-NC license.

Download article (PDF)
View full text (HTML)

Journal
Artery Research
Volume-Issue
23 - C
Pages
56 - 62
Publication Date
2018/09
ISSN (Online)
1876-4401
ISSN (Print)
1872-9312
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.artres.2018.08.003How to use a DOI?
Copyright
© 2018 Association for Research into Arterial Structure and Physiology. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Open Access
This is an open access article distributed under the CC BY-NC license.

Cite this article

TY  - JOUR
AU  - Xinge Jiang
AU  - Shoushui Wei
AU  - Jingbo Ji
AU  - Feifei Liu
AU  - Peng Li
AU  - Chengyu Liu
PY  - 2018
DA  - 2018/09
TI  - Modeling radial artery pressure waveforms using curve fitting: Comparison of four types of fitting functions
JO  - Artery Research
SP  - 56
EP  - 62
VL  - 23
IS  - C
SN  - 1876-4401
UR  - https://doi.org/10.1016/j.artres.2018.08.003
DO  - https://doi.org/10.1016/j.artres.2018.08.003
ID  - Jiang2018
ER  -